skip to main |
skip to sidebar
WaPo reports.The Idaho law... bans most abortions... with an exception when “necessary to prevent the death of a pregnant woman.”
The federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act was passed nearly 40 years ago to ensure that hospitals receiving Medicare funds treat or transfer patients with emergency medical conditions. After the Dobbs decision, the federal government issued new guidance to hospitals saying that the 1986 law requires health-stabilizing treatment for all patients, even if that treatment is an abortion....
Federal law protects patients not only from imminent death but also from emergencies that seriously threaten their health, Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar told the justices in a court filing....
Posts
13 comments:
Progressives, liberals, and moderates are antisciemce, transhumane, misogynistic religious zealots that deny women's dignity and agency, demand performance of human rites, and advocate for the wicked solution to keep women affordable, available, and taxable, and the "burden" of evidence sequestered in darkness. That said, six weeks to a viable human life in all 50 states, and probably the District of Corruption (sic). #NoJudgment #NoLabels #HateLovesAbortion
Supreme Court to decide if U.S. law requires some emergency room abortions.
In this situation, the most important issue for me is a grammar issue.
The article's headline should have been written:
Supreme Court to decide whether U.S. law requires some emergency room abortions.
There is a significant difference between if and whether.
In this blog article, The Washington Post says incorrectly:
Supreme Court to decide if U.S. law requires some emergency room abortions.
-------
In the previous blog article, The New York Times says correctly:
The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide whether former President Donald J. Trump is ineligible for Colorado’s Republican primary ballot.
One more decision that assures us that abortion will remain a very significant issue this coming election.
What was originally referred to as the Hippocratic Oath changed over time from originally banning coat-hanger-like treatments to not condemning the practice of abortion. So the physicians just couldn't couldn't get it right so now the judges are taking a whack at the problem. Good luck with that because the "first do no harm" rule now doesn't stand a chance, nor will "equal justice under the law."
who is using coat hangers?
Is there a clinic/place/show called: "Coat hanger back alley Abortion, SVU?" or is that just a show on NBC?
most abortions now, are with drugs.
gadfly The Hopeless: "What was originally referred to as the Hippocratic Oath changed over time from originally banning coat-hanger-like treatments..."
Hippocratic Oath: crafted centuries before the birth of Christ.
Wire Coat-hangers: invented in 1869 AD (not CE).
Comments like the above from gadfly, when he deviates from his usual practice of just copying and pasting the work of writers/thinkers more capable than himself (which is basically everyone) without quotation marks nor attribution nor links, are why the LLR-democraticals Chuck/Rich/lonejustice will never accept pee-wee league LLR-democratical gadfly onto the LLR-democratical Varsity Squad.
And considering how pathetic that Triumverate of Tiny Toe-suckers happens to be, that's sayin' something!
Speaking of toe-sucking, I've noticed a number of months have passed since LLR-democratical Chuck last posted a Violent Homosexual Rage Rape Fantasy on Althouse blog.
Let us pray this happy respite from such disturbed and psychotic malignant mewlings from banned commenter Chuck continues!
most abortions now, are with drugs.
Most abortions are elective, many past the age of viability, committed with drugs, wielding scalpels, and vacuums to remove toxic humamity.
I question the premise that an abortion is necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. Isn't the actual strategy to try to remove the child intact and alive, and then try as best you can to save both lives?
There is no case where a feticidal abortion is necessary to protect the life of a pregnant woman.
At all.
Abortion takes too long. It's faster to induce or C-section a live baby, even if it's not yet past 21-22 weeks, and provide palliative care, than to abort.
Pro-aborts lie about everything.
In b4 some mental midget mentions ectopic pregnancies. But those aren't managed with abortion, but with a salpingectomy or salpingostomy - a larthroscopic surgical procedure that does not kill the embryo. It dies naturally.
Pro-aborts lie about that, too.
Some dude on the internet claimed it was never needed, I guess that settles it lol
I am having trouble thinking of an applicable ER scenario outside of ectopic pregnancy (which isn't applicable either). I don't claim to know everything, though, so if you know, please share.
Ditto, if there are doctors out there refusing to treat ectopic pregnancy.
I have read cases of women whose heart stopped and quickly restarted after emergency c-sections. While one could justify an abortion to save a woman's life for a woman in a situation this is likely to occur, it still wouldn't be an emergency until she's in distress. And then, a c-section would be quicker and time is of the essence.
Medically necessary does not equal emergency; tons of needed surgeries got delayed due to Covid.
Post a Comment